Indeed. He cleared a few people out of hospital beds but it seemed to go
the way of a fad. It made a point but how much is it worth if everyone
can choose to do it for themselves for free.
D.
On 30/09/2012 11:44 AM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:
Do you remember Norman Cousins and his laughter therapy?
Cheers,
Lawry
On Sep 30, 2012, at 12:12 PM, D & N wrote:
I have heard of such things.
Feeling bad. Negatives. Would this not block the flow of energies
through our bodies? Creating areas of stagnation? It is one thing to
have these areas assisted by massage (or whatever) but if the
underlying reason for illness is not addressed, the illness will
continue or return. There have been incidents of total cancer
remission without intervention. But, once one has cancer (or other
major illness) another circle in one's life is closing the ring. So
feeling bad may initiate a disease but now having the disease makes
one feel worse (perhaps in another way) and the feedback loop is
complete to retain the disease.
D.
On 29/09/2012 10:29 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:
So feeling bad gives you cancer. Rather than Cancer makes you feel
bad. Hmmm.
Interesting.
REH
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Keith
Hudson
*Sent:* Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:05 PM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Diminishing life expectancy of the poor
At 15:04 29/09/2012, you wrote:
From today's AlterNet Newsletter. I find the last paragraph
interesting -- the idea that ill health and diminishing life
expectancy are at least partly the result of the poor feeling they
are sinking into an increasingly hopeless situation. Might life
expectancy be related to how good and useful you feel?
Yes, I'd have thought so.
Keith
Ed
Shocker Stat: Life Expectancy Decreases by 4 Years Among Poor
Whites in U.S.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all>
on an alarming new study: researchers have documented that the least
educated white Americans are experiencing sharp declines in life
expectancy. Between 1990 and 2008, white women without a high school
diploma lost a full five years of their lives, while their male
counterparts lost three years. Experts say that declines in life
expectancy in developed countries are exceedingly rare
<http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/nation/la-na-womens-health-20110615>,
and that in the U.S., decreases on this scale "have not been seen in
the U.S. since the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918." Even during
the Great Depression, which wrought economic devastation and severe
psychic trauma for millions of Americans, average life expectancy
was on the increase
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm>.
What are the reasons for the disturbing drop in life expectancy
among poor white folks, and in particular for the unusually large
magnitude of the decline? According to the Times, researchers are
baffled: one expert said, "There's this enormous issue of why . . .
It's very puzzling and we don't have a great explanation."
Undoubtedly, the increasing numbers of low-income Americans without
health insurance is a major contributor factor. Researchers also say
that lifestyle factors such as smoking, which has increased among
low-income white women, play a role; poor folks tend to engage in
more risky health behaviors than their more affluent counterparts.
I will offer an alternative hypothesis, one which is not explicitly
identified in the Times article: inequality. In the U.S., the period
between 1990 and 2008, which is a period that saw such steep
declines in life expectancy for the least well-off white people, is
also a period during which economic inequality soared
<http://inequality.org/income-inequality/>. Moreover, there is a
compelling body of research that suggests that inequality itself --
quite apart from low incomes, or lack of health insurance -- is
associated with more negative health outcomes for those at the
bottom of the heap. One of the most famous series of studies of the
social determinants of health, Britain's Whitehall Studies
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study>, had as their
subjects British civil servants, all of whom health insurance and
(presumably) decent enough jobs. Intriguingly, these studies
found a strong association between grade levels of civil servant
employment and mortality rates from a range of causes. Men in the
lowest grade (messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) had a mortality rate
three times higher than that of men in the highest grade
(administrators).
The Whitehall studies found that while workers in the lower grades
were more likely to be at risk for coronary heart disease due to
factors such as higher rates of smoking, higher blood pressure,
etc., even after controlling for those confounding factors, these
workers still experienced significantly higher mortality rates. So
what was behind such disparate health incomes among high-status and
low-status workers? Researchers pointed the finger at inequality,
hypothesizing that various psychosocial factors associated with
inequality --- such as the higher levels of stress at work and at
home experienced by the lower tier workers, as well as their lower
levels of self-esteem --- were behind the dramatic differences in
mortality rates.
I believe that inequality-related stressors are likely to be the
determining factors in declining American life expectancies, as
well. I'm surprised, in fact, that the Times article did not
specifically identify inequality as a causal factor, because the
health risks associated with economic inequality are
well-established in the scientific literature. For decades, the
United States has been making a series of political choices that has
distributed wealth and power upwards and left working Americans not
only poorer and sicker, but also feeling far more burdened and
distressed, and experiencing far less security and control over
their lives. The consequences of these choices have been
devastating, and absent a dramatic reversal in our political course,
they are likely to get even worse. Where inequality is concerned,
Republicans have their foot on the accelerator, while the best the
Democrats seem to be able to do is to (temporarily) put their foot
on the brake.
We are on a trajectory all right, and it's not a good one.
The Washington Monthly / By Kathleen Geier
<http://www.alternet.org/authors/kathleen-geier> | Sourced from
Washington Monthly
<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_09/shocker_stat_of_the_day_life_e040058.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20washingtonmonthly/rss%20%28Political%20Animal%20at%20Washington%20Monthly%29>
Posted at September 22, 2012, 8:27am
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
